General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[Corsair 115]

Yes, the proof of the Zionspiracy is the fact that there's no evidence for the Zionspiracy. Very tautological.

Considering CM's current argumentative trajectory, he'll soon be taking over Saggy's vacated spot and will begin regaling us with tales of the vast global Jewish conspiracy which controls the media, academia, and everything else.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Go to 14:00 in this video where he says that the jews themselves were to blame for Auschwitz.



Do you think anti-semitism is bad?

In that the term antisemitism is unique in this world as no religion or racial group has an specific identity such as antisemitism, it would seem that those hated have caused themselves to be hated, would it not?

 

[nomuse]

In that the term antisemitism is unique in this world as no religion or racial group has an specific identity such as antisemitism, it would seem that those hated have caused themselves to be hated, would it not?

You mean there's no such thing as racial profiling? You mean there is no such thing as being black in America? You mean there is no program of slander against wiccans? You mean there is no country where Catholics are singled out for hatred by the dominant Protestants?

What ARE you saying here?

 

[Charles Traynor]

What, exactly, in that film did Spielberg (or any of the cast) fabricate?

Q. How do you know when Irene “Diamond Girl” Zisblatt is lying?

A. Her mouth is moving.


Have you seen the film?

 

[Dogzilla]

Of course you're not. We've already established that you, SnakeTongue, and CM don't read the actual scholarship of the Holocaust published by real academics and historians.

We don't ready every obscure collection of words published about the holocaust. I can't speak for everybody but I've read the major works by the Hilbergs, Friedlaenders, Evans, etc. about the holocaust. But a book about slave labor? I'd rather watch a Gilligan's Island marathon.

It contradicts a rather significant aspect of the "official story" ("the widespread thesis that compulsory work was organized only by the SS, and that exploitation was only an intermediate tactic on the way to mass murder or, rather, that it was only a facet in the destruction of the Jews") that deniers like to claim is supposedly inviolable. To the point that, as I noted above, Clayton believes that the book is an attempt to "cushion the response when the bubble bursts" and "just the beginning of an effort to cushion the reaction to the revelation for brain dead believers that there were no gas chambers".

I'm asking your side to explain how such an apparently damaging book (that is expressly for the purpose of preparing "believers" for the revelation that there weren't any gas chambers, no less), published by a German historian living in Germany, slipped through the laws against Holocaust denial that you claim clamps down on and prevents any attempt to question the so-called "official story" by German scholars.

OK, so this book refutes the widely held belief that exploiting Jewish labor was only an intermediate step towards the destruction of the Jewish people. What does it say the point of exploiting Jewish labor actually was? Does it say that exploiting Jewish labor was the ultimate goal and that there wasn't any intent to physically exterminate the Jews? What is published in this book that says there weren't any gas chambers, there wasn't a plan to exterminate the Jews or that nowhere near six million died? If this guy doesn't seriously undermine any of those things then he's probably not "denying" the holocaust.

What does this guy say that CM would interpret as preparing the believers for the revelation that there weren't any gas chambers?

 

[TSR]

Q. How do you know when Irene “Diamond Girl” Zisblatt is lying?

A. Her mouth is moving.

Have you seen the film?

No, I have not -- I prefer getting my history from historians.

But I'm glad you finally answered a question cm hadn't the ball to -- let's talk about this.

If absolutely everything this woman says is false -- in what way does that make the film itself as a whole a "Holocaust fabrication"? In what was does her mendacity effect in any way, shape or form the normative understanding of the events around which she formed her story?

 

[uke2se]

Q. How do you know when Irene “Diamond Girl” Zisblatt is lying?

A. Her mouth is moving.


Have you seen the film?

Great argument. She's lying because... I... say... so!

 

[LemmyCaution]

In that the term antisemitism is unique in this world as no religion or racial group has an specific identity such as antisemitism, it would seem that those hated have caused themselves to be hated, would it not?

It would not.

I would guess, by this logic, such as I can discern it, that the Irish themselves caused the Nativist anti-Irish movement of the pre-Civil War years in the US.

 

[LemmyCaution]

In that the term antisemitism is unique in this world as no religion or racial group has an specific identity such as antisemitism, it would seem that those hated have caused themselves to be hated, would it not?

To repeat the question asked, do you think antisemitism is bad, or, on account of your assumption above, do you find it necessary or even positive?

 

[LemmyCaution]

We don't ready every obscure collection of words published about the holocaust. I can't speak for everybody but I've read the major works by the Hilbergs, Friedlaenders, Evans, etc. about the holocaust.

Gruner isn't obscure; he also wrote the major "corrective" work on the Rosenstrasse protest, discussed here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7933793&postcount=9057 and elsewhere.

But a book about slave labor? I'd rather watch a Gilligan's Island marathon.

Given the contents of your collected posts on this topic and its relation to the extermination actions, your preference comes as a surprise to no one.

OK, so this book refutes the widely held belief that exploiting Jewish labor was only an intermediate step towards the destruction of the Jewish people. What does it say the point of exploiting Jewish labor actually was? Does it say that exploiting Jewish labor was the ultimate goal and that there wasn't any intent to physically exterminate the Jews? What is published in this book that says there weren't any gas chambers, there wasn't a plan to exterminate the Jews or that nowhere near six million died?

If you're interested, why not read the book? If you're not interested, put on another episode of Gilligan's Island.

If this guy doesn't seriously undermine any of those things then he's probably not "denying" the holocaust.

Where did ANTPogo say Gruner was denying the Holocaust?

What does this guy say that CM would interpret as preparing the believers for the revelation that there weren't any gas chambers?

Clayton?

 

[LemmyCaution]

Great argument. She's lying because... I... say... so!

Cue another discussion done to death: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/search.php?searchid=904222

Many of these posts discuss Dr Joachim Neander's reconstruction of Zisblatt's life in the light of the account she fictionalized in her autobiography.

One wishes the new members of the forum would bring something new to it, but Mr Traynor has never had much new to say about the Holocaust. Ask him how his opus on Auschwitz-Birkenau is coming next time you want a nap.

 

[Robert Muehlenkamp]

Well, that's not much of an accomplishment for them, now, is it? To call for something is rather easy and doesn't tell anyone very much.

Have you read Roberto's HC blog postings on the archaeological work done at AR camps and Chelmno? What are the major questions you think this work needs to resolve? And you're implying, by saying "Why not drill and dig" that Holocaust historians are against such work, the very kind of work that Krege, with his lawn mover machine, flubbed (before going into hiding) and Sturdy Colls is doing? I'm not clear on what the issue is . . .

I agree with Nessie that more archaeological work should be done, and that it shouldn't be restricted to non-invasive subsoil imaging just because someone's religious feelings might be hurt. At least one archaeologists I know (who is Jewish) considers that restriction rather annoying and limiting.

 

[Robert Muehlenkamp]

To be sure, we already know a lot about the the mass graves at Bełżec, Sobibór, Treblinka and Chełmno. And what we know is sufficient to conclude that the physical evidence fully corroborates the documentary, eyewitness and demographic evidence to mass extermination at these places.

 

[Robert Muehlenkamp]

Well, that's not much of an accomplishment for them, now, is it? To call for something is rather easy and doesn't tell anyone very much.

Have you read Roberto's HC blog postings on the archaeological work done at AR camps and Chelmno? What are the major questions you think this work needs to resolve? And you're implying, by saying "Why not drill and dig" that Holocaust historians are against such work, the very kind of work that Krege, with his lawn mover machine, flubbed (before going into hiding) and Sturdy Colls is doing? I'm not clear on what the issue is . . .

I agree with Nessie that more archaeological work should be done, and that it shouldn't be restricted to non-invasive subsoil imaging just because someone's religious feelings might be hurt. At least one archaeologist I know (who is Jewish) considers that restriction rather annoying and limiting.

This opinion is expressed in my 2008 blog Mass Graves at Sobibor – 10th Update, to which I recently added one of the video films I made at Sobibór.

To be sure, we already know a lot about the the mass graves at Bełżec, Sobibór, Treblinka and Chełmno. And what we know is sufficient to conclude that the physical evidence fully corroborates the documentary, eyewitness and demographic evidence to mass extermination at these places.

However, we would know a lot more if archaeologists had not been restricted to non-invasive methods following the fuss made by a New York rabbi about core drilling at Bełżec.

And the historiography of these camps would greatly benefit from such knowledge. Shutting up morons like Berg with their "why don’t you dig" – nonsense would be an additional benefit.

[My previous two posts, which contain parts of this post, were posted to reach the minimum number of posts after which I'm allowed to post links.]

 

[Clayton Moore]

Q. How do you know when Irene “Diamond Girl” Zisblatt is lying?

A. Her mouth is moving.


Have you seen the film?

Greatest first post ever.

 

[Dcdrac]

More absurdity from the looney toons school of history someone is lying baecasue I say so......

How indepth

 

[LemmyCaution]

I agree with Nessie that more archaeological work should be done, and that it shouldn't be restricted to non-invasive subsoil imaging just because someone's religious feelings might be hurt. At least one archaeologists I know (who is Jewish) considers that restriction rather annoying and limiting.

I think that most of us in opposition to denial agree with you. I know that I do. I find it annoying when deniers strawman that I or others oppose further archaeological investigation of Nazi mass murder sites. I will say this, however, that findings always need interpretation - and forensics are not the black/white matter deniers try making out. I should also add that the various studies done to date convince me that the AR camps and Chelmo were scenes of mass murder and in no way challenge other sources and evidence. The same is true of what we have from various studies - from the SEC to Desbois - of open-air shooting sites in the former USSR.

I wish, just the same, that Nessie, who accepts (as stated above) that mass exterminations of Jews weree carried out in the AR camps, would sketch out an investigation agenda or at least highlight the questions he sees as critical in framing further work at such sites.

As to religious feelings, it should be noted, contra Berg, that concerns about digging at gravesites are not exclusive to Jewish groups, witness the debate in the Americas concerning digs at American Indian sites.

 

[Nessie]

Seriously, get to the freaking point. What is your objective in this thread? Is it trolling? If so, well played. Is it something else? Please state it.

If you read through the thread, you will find heaps and heaps of evidence that the holocaust happened as the common narrative claims. This is why it is the common narrative - it has been researched and analysed by hundreds if not thousands of historians for more than 60 years. There is more to learn - there always is - but barring some fantastical new evidence, and an explanation for why thousands of people have lied for all these years, none of the basic facts are going to get revised. These facts include the use of gas-vans, the AR camps, the gas chambers (including Krema II) and much else.

If you wish to challenge these basic facts, prepare to provide overwhelming heaps of evidence. If you cannot, your challenge is irrational and is rightly classified as holocaust denial. Are you a holocaust denier, Nessie?

My position is that the revisionist/denier make some valid points. I decided to look through their agenda and anti-semitism and see what they actually have to say.

I was asked before for examples of that and another is regarding the Hitler order. I had always believed there was one, so was surprised to find that there is not and there are questions to be asked about that.

I am not challenging the basic facts, but I have become sceptical of certain details. I am also more open to revisionism that others here.

From the confusion that has caused it appears my position is very unusual.

 

[Nessie]

Can't link - under 15 posts. In any event the relevant posts are scattered across several pages of this thread. Or are you referring to a debate elsewhere? I assumed you meant earlier in this thread. My response on Irving was that I don't consider his anti-semitism to be "minimal."

Is it relevant that they are (or smith thinks they are, I haven't really looked into it) a "Jewish lobby."? Why the concern? Why should the activities of contemporary Jewish groups be relevant to whether or not the holocaust happened. There's even a post a few pages back on his blog entirely about a modern day arson in the US, in which Smith believes both victims and arsonists were Jewish. Why is this relevant to "revisionism." To me, this points to anti-semitism.

The thread is on another forum.

I have already said I no concern about Jewish Lobby groups whether for or against denial laws. Though my preference is against denial laws.

You guys are reading an agenda into what I am saying which is not there. I think some people are so battle hardened to such debates that they have attack as their only mode and see agendas in everything.

 

[Nessie]

Nessie is a fence sitter, he wants to have his cake and eat it. They are very rare creatures.

Usually a fence-sitter is actually a holocaust denier using a sockpuppet to troll with. He could just of course be exhibiting that good old sense of British fair play that we are famous for. Or thon guid auld sense ay Scottish fair play that wur aye kent fi.

You would go down as a denier. If you question any part of it, you're denying all of it. These people don't understand the different between "some of it didn't happen" and "it didn't happen."

Yes, I am a fence sitter and I am uncertain of some parts of the Holocaust, but am not a denier.

The fair play comes in as I see both sides dishing out loads of abuse and pot calling kettle black.